Measuring Employees’ Job Satisfaction as Moderated by ... 5 Issue 12 Paper 21.pdf · promotion,...

International Journal of Management Sciences and Business Research, Dec-2016 ISSN (2226-8235) Vol-5, Issue 12

http://www.ijmsbr.com Page 221

Measuring Employees’ Job Satisfaction as Moderated by Cultural Dimension Power

Distance in Public and Private Sectors’ Pakistani Organizations

Author’s Details:

(1)Saqib Yaqoob Malik-MS (Management Sciences) Mohammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad, Pakistan

(2) Professor Dr. Anwar Fazil Chishti-City University of Science and Information Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan

(3) Saqib Shahzad-City University of Science and Information Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan

Corresponding Author

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether different facets of job satisfaction exist and if yes, then their existence

determine employees’ total job satisfaction in Pakistani public and private sector organizations, and whether cultural

dimension Power distance moderates between ‘job satisfaction facets’ and ‘total job satisfaction’. From one perspective,

findings of the current study support all nine hypotheses that claim nine facets of job satisfaction determine overall job

satisfaction. But on other hand findings of current study do not support that power distance moderates relationship

between job satisfaction facets and employees overall job satisfaction.Management of organizations, whether public or

private sector, should take note of the fact that almost all nine facets of job satisfaction have been found statistically

significant factors of determining of job satisfaction among employees; hence these factors should be considered and used

as primary movers for motivating employees for hard work, greater productivity and improved efficiency.

Keywords: Employee’s Job Satisfaction, Facets of Employees’ Job Satisfaction, Effect of Cultural Dimension, Power

Distance

1. INTRODUCTION Employees‟ Job satisfaction is generally referred to as the employees‟ position which reflects how content or

satisfied employees are with their positions or jobs. Ivancevich et al. (1997) define job satisfaction as the feeling

and perception of an employee regarding his work and how he feels himself well in an organization. Spector

(1997), while referring job satisfaction, mentions as to how simply the workers feel about their jobs and

different aspects of their jobs and the extent to which workers like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their

jobs. Researchers also talk about the job satisfaction related outcomes. The often referred outcomes include

employees‟ commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Francesso and Chen, 2002), absenteeism and turnover (Yousef,

2000; Ali, 2008) and work motivation (Ayub, 2011).Satisfied employees are believed to perform their work

more effectively (Shipton et al., 2006).

Spector (1985) has proposed measuring job satisfaction through nine facets of job satisfaction, including pay,

promotion, supervision, benefits, rewards, operation procedure, co-workers relations, work itself and

communication. His measure is generally referred to as Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS).This Job Satisfaction

Survey (JSS) scale is considered one of the well developed job satisfaction instruments (Giri& Kumar, 2010;

Yelboga, 2009; Watson et al., 2007). One of the cultural dimensions - power distance - is generally defined and

referred to as the situation of social acceptance of unequal distribution of the power, based on the prestige,

wealth and power (Hofstede 2001). Powerful people should try not to look too powerful in lower power

distance cultures. In higher power distance cultures, people try to look as powerful or impressive as possible,

since power gives privileges. The role of employees is focused in low power distance cultures while the role of

managers is emphasized in high power distance cultures. High power distance cultures tend to respect a

hierarchy in an organization (i.e. centralization), whereas low power distance cultures exhibit relatively a few

layers (i.e. decentralization).

Among the important cultural characteristics of Pakistan are vast differences in socioeconomic status of both at

societal and organizational levels. Pakistani culture characterizes by relatively more conservative and

traditionalist rural. Hence, cultural dimension - power distance - is being included as a moderator, in this study,

http://www.ijmsbr.com/



to check whether this variable moderates the relationship between job satisfaction facets and employees‟ total

satisfaction.

1.1 Problem Statement

As introduced earlier, this research study intends to investigate whether different facets of job satisfaction

determine employees‟ total job satisfaction in Pakistani public and private sector organizations, and the cultural

dimension power distance moderates between „job satisfaction facets‟ and „total job satisfaction‟.

For this particular research, Spector‟s (1985) Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) is used as a base, and his proposed

nine facets of job satisfaction, namely Pay, Promotion, Supervision, Benefits, Co-workers, Nature of work, and

Communication are measured. The measures of these nine facets of job satisfaction are then used to determine

total satisfaction, as per Spector‟s own suggested methodology. In addition to using the Spector‟s methodology

of evaluating employees responses by adding scores obtained through a 6-items Likert scale (1, 2, ….6) and

evaluating those at three levels of „Dissatisfactory‟, „Ambivalence/Neutral‟ and „Satisfactory‟, this study

extends the Spector‟s evaluation methodology by generating variables of interest, through statistical way of

taking means of the employees responses and comparing it with mid-points (One-Sample t-test). Consequently,

the study would find the mean values of the Pay satisfaction, Promotion satisfaction, Supervision satisfaction,

Benefit satisfaction, Co-worker satisfaction, Work itself satisfaction, Communication satisfaction and Total

satisfaction.Another extension, this study would make over the Spector‟s way, is regressing the Spector‟s own

variable of „total satisfaction‟ and independently developed scale of „Overall Job Satisfaction‟ over the nine jab

satisfaction facets, just to check whether each of the nine job satisfaction facets positively and significantly

contributes towards total satisfaction of the employees. The research would specifically intend to pursue the

following questions, with the aim of achieving objectives stated in an incoming section.

1.2 Research Questions 1. Whether Spector (1985) Job Satisfaction Survey and its nine facets measure total job satisfaction and overall

job satisfaction?

2. Does the Hofstede national culture‟s dimension „power distance‟ exist in Pakistani public and private sector

organizations? If it does, does power distance moderates relationship between job satisfaction facets and

employees overall job satisfaction? 1.3 Research Objectives

1. To measure employees‟ job satisfaction, using Spector (1985) Job Satisfaction Survey and its nine facets.

1 To econometrically determine total satisfaction and overall job satisfaction, using Spector‟s (1985) nine job

satisfaction facets.

2 To check whether the Hofstede national culture‟s dimension „power distance‟ exists in Pakistani public and

private sector organizations. 3 To evaluate whether power distance moderates relationship between job satisfaction facets and employees

overall job satisfaction. 4 To suggest policy prescriptions based on research findings

1.4 Significance of the Study

This study has special significance on several counts. First, it would validate the use of Spector‟s (1985) nine

job satisfaction facets for measuring of employees‟ job satisfaction. Second, it would econometrically determine

whether the nine job satisfaction facets determine total satisfaction and overall job satisfaction. Third, it would

determine the existence of cultural dimension power distance in Pakistani situation, and whether the power

distance moderates between the nine facets and employees overall job satisfaction.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW




The six-dimension Hofstede model of national culture is based on his long and widely referred work

(Hofstede, 1991, Hofstede, 2001, Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005, Hofstede, 2010, www.geerthofstede.nl). Power

distance is the degree to which differences in power and status are accepted in a culture (Hofstede, 2001).

According to Hofstede definition, the power distance is connected with the social acceptance of unequal

distribution of the power. This inequality can be connected with prestige, wealth and power (Hofstede 2001).

In higher power distance cultures, people try to look as powerful or impressive as possible, since power gives

privileges. Bialas (2009) has found that power is based on authority and differences in the level of power

distance influence relations between managers and employees. A number of researchers carried out research

on effects of various dimensions of Hofstede national culture. These included: Burgmann, Kitchen and

Williams (2006) entitled “Does culture matter on the web?” Yoo, Rao and Hong (2005) entitled “A

comparative study on cultural differences and quality practices – Korea, USA, Mexico and Taiwan”. Ojo

(2009) entitled “Impact Assessment of Corporate Culture on Job Performance”. Hussain and Yousaf (2009)

entitled “Organizational Culture: Impact on Female Employees‟ Job Performance”. According to Hofstede‟s

research, the country-wise scores, developed on the basis of the six referred dimensions, are relative -

societies are compared to other societies. These relative scores have been proven to be quite stable over

decades. Hofstedes website provides scores secured by Pakistan (relative to some other countries) on the

basis of the Hofstede model on 6-dimensions national culture, as follows.

Country

Power

Distance

Individualism

versus

Collectivism

Masculinity

versus

Femininity’

Uncertainty

Avoidance

Long-Term

Orientation

Indulgence

versus

Restraint

Pakistan 55 14 50 70 50 0

India 77 48 56 40 51 26

U.S.A. 40 91 62 46 26 68

U.K. 35 89 66 35 51 69

Germany 35 67 66 65 83 40

Japan 54 46 95 92 88 42

Oloka and Ogutu (2011) found that power distance moderates the relationship between employee empowerment

and outcome variables job autonomy and job satisfaction while power distance does not moderate the

relationship between employee empowerment and the organization commitment.

Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction as “pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of

one‟s job or job experience”. Job satisfaction is widely discussed in literature. It has got great attention and

extensively researched topic in organizational research and numerous articles have been published on job

satisfaction. Spector (1997) defined job satisfaction simply as the degree to which people like their jobsJob

satisfaction can defined as positive affect towards employment (Mueller & McCloskey, 1990). According to

(Kamal and Hanif, 2009) job satisfaction linked to outcomes such as reduce absenteeism, intention to quit. In

general HR professional have made a distinction between affective and cognitive job satisfaction. Affective job

satisfaction representing overall positive emotional feeling of individuals about their job. It is different from

cognitive job satisfaction which is the extent to which a person is satisfied and contended from specific job

facets e.g pay, pension, working hours etc. Satisfied employees are believed to perform their work more

effectively (Shipton et al., 2006). According to Bibi et al. (2003) job satisfaction level can enhance through

implementation of effective human resource management practices and policies. Ali (2008) overall job

satisfaction has significantly negatively linked with turnover intention. There are different number of

instruments and analytical tools which have been developed to measure satisfaction level. To improve job

satisfaction and productivity mangers have to consider both hygiene factors and motivators.


http://www.geerthofstede.nl/



Critics have pointed out that theory does not state how motivator and hygiene factors would measure (Daft

&Noe, 2001). Spector (1997), while referring job satisfaction, mentions as to simply how workers feel about

their jobs and different aspects of their jobs and the extent to which workers like (satisfaction) or dislike

(dissatisfaction) their jobs.Many researchers identified that job satisfaction is comprised of various facets. The

results indicated that all facets determine job satisfaction. (Opkara, 2002 &Akinboye, 2001) described various

factors of job satisfaction such as pay, co-workers relations, supervision, promotion, professional development

and commitment. The nine facets of Job Satisfaction Survey included pay, promotion, supervision, benefits,

contingent rewards, operating procedures, co-workers relations, nature of work and communication. The score

of all facets of job satisfaction are summed together to represent total job satisfaction. The findings of Lumley

et al. (2011) revealed that there was a significant and positive relationship between job satisfaction (measured

by Job Satisfaction Survey) and organizational commitment.

Rosales, R.A., Labrgue, L.J. & Rosales, G.L. (2013) used Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) to measure the level of

job satisfaction and burnout among nurses in government hospitals and found validation. Ayub (2011) studied

the relationship between work motivation and job satisfaction in banking sector employees of Pakistan. Pay

refers to employees salary and remuneration (Spector, 1994). Pay is a form of periodic payment or to make due

return against services rendered to the employee from employer. Naval and Srivastava (2004) fair pay method is

positively associated with job satisfaction. Pay satisfaction is strongly connected with overall job satisfaction.

Pay is considered as very vital organizational reward (Heneman and Judge, 2000). The findings of Sharma and

Bajpai (2011) revealed that pay satisfaction increasesjob satisfaction in public and private sector employees.

Hanif and Kamal (2009) pay is leading predictors for job satisfaction. Card et al. (2010) job satisfaction directly

depends on relative pay comparisons. Pay is important motivator for employees. Munjuri (2011) concluded that

pay for performance and training have most significant impact on performance level of employees. Malik et al

(2012) pay has significant influence upon employee job satisfaction. Zoubi (2012) suggests increase in the pay

certainly increases employee job satisfaction and its also effect on employee performance and lift up the

motivation level in employees. Promotion is considered as the essential aspect and important factor for

enhancing the job satisfaction. Promotion is defined as shifting of an employee to a higher rank job (Edward,

2000).

Promotion satisfaction determines employee satisfaction when employees feel numerous chances for promotion

in organization (De Souza, 2002).Promotion is an important component in aemployee career. According to

Kosteas (2011) promotions may be used as a system to increase employee satisfaction by employers. Shahzad et

al. (2008) have found significant relationship between HR practices i.e. promotion, performance evaluation,

compensation and perceived employee performance. Naval and Srivastava, 2004 suggest that fair promotion

strategy offer chances for individual growth which increases employee satisfaction and organizational

commitment.Being general trendpromotions, fringe benefits, pay, and rewards have positive impact on

employee job satisfaction. Supervision satisfaction defined as employees satisfaction with immediate supervisor

of employee (Spector, 1985). According to (Robbins et al, 2003) supervision defined as “the ability of the

supervisor to provide emotional and technical support and guidance with work related tasks. A supervisor is

defined as front-line manager who is responsible for supervision of employees (Heery & Noon, 2001).

According to Mudor and Tooksoon (2011) human resource management practices i.e. supervision, pay practice

& job training have significant impact on job satisfaction. Mbah and Ikemefuna (2012) found that satisfaction

with supervision is negatively related to turnover intention. According to Bhamani (2012)supervision,

promotionand coworkers are most important facets and the leading predictors for job satisfaction. Fringe

benefits are set of different benefits given by an employer. Fringe benefits defined as “the monetary and non

monetary benefits that might exists within the employees position” (Spector, 2007). According to research

report (SHRM, 2011) benefits as major contributor tojob satisfaction.Artz (2010) has examined the relationship




between fringe benefit and worker job satisfaction. The result indicates positive relationship between fringe

benefits and job satisfaction. Benefits can increase job satisfaction. According to (Goyal and Shrivastava, 2012)

HR practices like employee benefits, promotions, employee schemes and transfers have positive impact on job

satisfaction. Benefits are considered to be important aspect of job satisfaction. Ali (2008) results of the study

indicated that all nine facets of job satisfaction i.e. fringe benefits, pay, promotion, supervision, contingent

rewards, working condition, coworkers, nature of work and communication has been found significantly related

with turnover intention.Benefits factor add more strongly towards job satisfaction. Marjan (2011) found positive

relationship between fringe benefits and job satisfaction. Benefits are very important to increase employee

satisfaction. According to Teoh et al. (2011) benefits and compensation, relationship with management and

working condition has positive and significant relationship with job satisfaction.

Rewards are conceived as function of employees satisfaction. Contingent rewards defined as “the recognition

and appreciation for a well done job” (Spector, 2008). Effective reward systemincludes both extrinsic reward

(pay, benefits, incentives, promotions etc) and intrinsic rewards are intangible rewards (recognition,

appreciation, participation, meeting new challenges, autonomy etc). Reward system is used as important

technique to retain employees in the organization and to increase their productivity. Reio and Callahon (2004)

suggests that bothintrinsic and extrinsic rewards increased productivity and employee satisfaction. Employee

commitment can be increased through reward and recognition (Andrew and Kent,2007). According to Rehman

et al. (2010) job rewards are most important determinant contributing job satisfaction and extrinsic rewards are

strongly important for job satisfaction in employees.(Sharaf at al., 2008) measured job satisfaction level among

health physicians through job satisfaction survey (JSS) and found that they were satisfied with co-workers,

work itself, communication and supervision while dissatisfied with pay, promotion, benefits and contingent

rewards. Javed et al. (2012) analyzed the impact of human resource practices ( i.e. rewards, recognition, training

& development) on job satisfaction in public sector organizations of Pakistan and results indicated that rewards

and training & development are significantly correlated with job satisfaction but recognition does not significant

impact on job satisfaction.

As Pakistan is developing country and employees of public sector give highly importance to monetary rewards

as compare to recognition. Hence rewards are extremely significant towards employees job satisfaction of

public sector in Pakistan. According to (Spector, 1994) operating procedures defined as “the governing rules,

policies, procedures and workload involving the paper work affecting employees job satisfaction”. (Shurbagi

and Zahari, 2012) have studied the relationship between organizational culture and five facets of job satisfaction

five i.e. operating procedures satisfaction, supervision satisfaction, benefits satisfaction, rewards satisfaction

and co-workers satisfaction and used (JSS) to measure job satisfaction and results revealed significant

relationship between organizational culture and all five facets of job satisfaction. Lumley et al. (2011)

employees commitment may not essentially relates to operating procedures satisfaction because of their

commitment with particular organizations. Danish and Usman (2010) explore the relationship between

operating procedures,promotion, work itself, recognition, sense of achievement, compensation, coworker,

supervision, growth satisfaction and motivation & work satisfaction in private and public divisions in an

industrial city of Pakistan.

According to Akinbobola (2011) operating procedures are the significant predictor of job involvement.

Bhamani (2012) investigate nine facets i.e. operating procedures, pay, promotion, benefits, rewards, co-workers

relations, supervision, communication and nature of work which determine job satisfaction. Co-workers

satisfaction is defined as employees‟ satisfaction with coworkers (Spector, 1985; Spector, 1997). It indicates

how an employee works with his colleague. Coworkers are people and colleagues an employee is working with

(Spector, 1994). Rast and Tourani (2012) finding suggests that co-workers relations, supervision, pay and nature

of work are factors that have impact on organizational commitment and found employees mainly satisfactory

factors. Hussin (2011) found positive relationship between co-workers, promotion, work itself, supervision and




job performance. Parvin and Kabir (2011) analyzed job satisfaction factors which effect overall job satisfaction

of the employees of pharmaceutical companies and results disclosed that co-workers relations, pay, supervision

are major determinants of job satisfaction.

According to (Spector, 1985) nature of work satisfaction may defined as employees satisfaction with the type of

work they do. Generally variety of tasks, job challenge and autonomy basis of more job satisfaction.Therefore,

Saari and Judge (2004) states that “to understand what causes people to be satisfied with their jobs, nature of

work is first place to look.” A study by Shah et al. (2012) reported positive correlation between satisfaction with

work itself, reward and recognition, supervision and job satisfaction. Castillo (2004) suggests work itself as

most motivating aspect of job satisfaction. Srivastava (2002) found positive correlation between work

adjustment and job satisfaction. Nature of work determines job satisfaction. Bhutto et al. (2012) suggest that

satisfaction with the nature of work, coworkers relations and supervision are main aspects of job satisfaction.

Communication satisfaction defined as employees‟ satisfaction with communication within the organization

(Spector, 1985). It explains the communication between the employees within the organization. Communication

is motivator factor to meet goals of organization. According to (Jorfi et al., 2011) communication effectiveness

has vital role in job satisfaction. Giri and Kumar (2010) studied the relationship between organization

communication on job satisfaction and job performance and it has been found that organization communication

has significant impact on job satisfaction & performance and it is dependent on behavior of communication of

an organization. Rad and Moraes (2009) found that communication, pay, promotion and benefits are

significantly associated with job satisfaction. Organizational communication has positive impact on worker job

satisfaction (Tuzun, 2013).

Westlund and Hannon (2008) measured the job satisfaction level among software developers and they used job

satisfaction survey for the collection of data. Ali and Haider (2012) found that internal organizational

communication has significant impact on job satisfaction.

Figure 1: Conceptual model

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Analytic framework

To measure and analyze the relationship between variables shown in conceptual model (Figure 3.1), the nine

dimensional measuring scale of job satisfaction developed by Spector (1985) and cultural dimensional scale

of „Power distance‟ developed by Dorfman and Howell (1988) were used. In addition to the Spector‟s (1985)

36-item scale of employees‟ „total satisfaction‟, an alternative 3-item „overall job satisfaction‟ measure

developed by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, &Klesh (1983) was also used to reinforce (or otherwise) the

POWER DISTANCE

(PD)

JOB SATISFACTION

(JS)

SPECTOR’S (1985) JOB SATISFACTION

FACETS

PAY (PS)

PROMOTION (PRS)

SUPERVISION (SUS)

BENEFITS (BES)

CONTINGENT REWARDS (RES)

OPERATING PROCEDURE (OPS)

CO-WORKERS (CRS)

NATURE OF WORK (NWS)

COMMUNICATION (COS)

\




results of the Spector‟s (1985) employees‟ total satisfaction‟. The following paragraphs provide a detailed

account of the techniques used for measuring and analyzing the various stated scales.

3.2 Spector’s (1985) measure of ‘job satisfaction facets’ and ‘total satisfaction’

Spector‟s (1985) measures were used as the basis of questionnaire to collect data on nine job satisfaction

facets, namely:

a. Pay satisfaction (PS),

b. Promotion satisfaction (PRS),

c. Supervision satisfaction (SUS),

d. Benefits satisfaction (BES),

e. Contingent Rewards satisfaction (RES),

f. Operating procedure satisfaction (OPS),

g. Co-workers (CRS),

h. Nature of work satisfaction (NWS)/ Work itself satisfaction , and

i. Communication satisfaction (COS).

According to Spector (1985), each of the above reported nine job satisfaction facets consists of four items

(questions). In all, there are 36 items in the Spector‟s (1985) job satisfaction measure.

3.3 Spector’s own way of analyzing scale

According to Spector‟s own way of analyzing scale (January, 2013. Job Satisfaction Survey, JSS: retrieved

from http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/scales/jsspag.html), whereas the four items of each of the nine sub-

scales will measure the respective variables (PS, PRS, SUS, BES, RES, OPS, CRS, NWS and COS), the all

36 items together (collectively) will also measure employees‟ total job satisfaction (JS). Since each item uses

6-point agree-disagree response choices, a score equal to 3 or less would therefore represent „dissatisfaction‟

and 4 or above would represent „satisfaction‟ with the job‟s respective facet, in each case of the nine job

facets. For each of the nine 4-item sub-scales (PS, PRS, SUS, BES, RES, OPS, CRS, NWS and COS), as well

as, for the 36-items total satisfaction (JS), the respondents‟ scores would be summed up and evaluated on the

following basis (Spector, 1985, 2013).

Scales Dis-

satisfactory

Ambivalence Satisfactory

For every 4-item subscale 4 – 12 score 12 – 16 score 16 – 24 score

For 36-item JS scale 36 – 108 score 108 – 144 score 144 – 216 score

Source: Developed on the basis of materials available on: Spector‟s Job Satisfaction

Survey,JSS:retrieved from http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/scales/jsspag.

html, on January 17, 2013) 3.4 Alternate measure of ‘Overall job satisfaction’ (developed by Cammannet al., 1983)

3 As already referred, Model 3.1 would be measured using two measures of employees‟ total or overall job

satisfaction. The first measure would be that originally suggested by Spector, that is, the use of employees‟

responses on his 36 items as a one collective measure, as already introduced and discussed earlier.

Additionally, and for comparing with the first one, a 3-item „overall job satisfaction‟ measure developed by

Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, &Klesh (1983; Appendix I; Part III) would also be used. As a principle, the

results of the two models should be similar and reinforce to each other.

3.5 Cultural dimension ‘Power distance’ (PD) measure (developed by Dorfman& Howell, 1988)

As discussed in the literature reviewed in earlier sections, and shown in Figure 3.1 also, cultural dimension

„Power distance‟ (PD) is expected to moderate the effects of various job satisfaction sub-facets, the nine „job

satisfaction facets‟ in this case. Though the power 3.5 for the basic nature of various items included; its items


http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/scales/jsspag.%20html




have been adapted with minor changes, for capturing the existing situation of power distance in local

condition.

3.6 Alternate way of analyzing Spector’s (1985) ‘job satisfaction facets’ and ‘total satisfaction’

In addition to what has been suggested above for evaluation of the responses on various subscales/facets of

job satisfaction (Spector‟s way of analyzing, where scores of responses are added), a relatively more

statistically-advanced way of evaluating the resultant scores is to take mean scores of each subscale and

determine its significance level, comparing it with the mid-point using one-sample t-tests. In the same way,

the significance of means score of employees‟ „total satisfaction‟ can also be evaluated, using one-sample t-

test. This thesis research has also adopted the stated alternative way of analyzing the results (measuring mean

scores and its significance level, comparing with mid-point).

3.7 Comparing employees responses across public and private sector

To check whether the mean values of various facets of job satisfaction and „total satisfaction‟, as well as, the

effect of moderating variable „Power distance‟ differ across public and private sectors, the famous Dummy-

variable econometric approach (Gujarati, 2007; pp. 304-331) was used, which required regressing variable

depending variable Y over dummy-variable D.

Y = β0 + β1D (3.1)

Where D = 1 for public sector employees and D = 0 for private sector employees.The intercept term β0

measures the mean value of the variable where we kept D = 0, private sector organization employees in this

case, and β1 measure the magnitude by which mean value of public sector employees‟ responses differ from that

of the private sector responses. However, while evaluating the coefficient carrying with D (that is, β1), β1 should

be checked for statistical significance, and the sign carrying with it. A statistical significant coefficient carrying

plus sign would mean that the mean response of the public sector employees is statistically higher by the

magnitude of the coefficient. While coefficient carrying negative sign would indicate that mean response would

be lower.

3.8 Regressing ‘total satisfaction’ over ‘job satisfaction facets’

A discussion on how Spector (1985, 2013) advocates to analyze and interpret the respondents scores has

already been provided in one of the earlier section; from that discussion, it reveals that Spector has not asked

for regressing „total satisfaction‟ on „job satisfaction facets‟. However, it would be more appropriate and

interesting to econometrically prove that the employees‟ responses on nine job satisfaction subscales

determine employees‟ total job satisfaction; so econometrically specifying such a relationship would require:

JS (Spector) = β0 + β1PS + β2PRS + β3SUS + β4BES+ β5RES + β6OPS + β7CRS

+ β8NWS + β9COS + e (3.1)

Model 3.1 would estimate whether the Spector‟s nine „job satisfaction facets‟ econometrically determine

Spector‟s „total satisfaction‟.

And to reinforce the same type of results of the effects of Spector‟s nine „job satisfaction facets‟ on an

independently developed „overall job satisfaction‟ measure (developed byCammann et al., 1983), we would also

estimate the following model.

JS (Overall) = β0 + β1PS + β2PRS + β3SUS + β4BES+ β5RES + β6OPS + β7CRS

+ β8NWS + β9COS + e (3.2)

3.9 Incorporating the effect of moderator ‘Power distance’

The following model (3.3), wherein moderator „power distance‟ has been incorporated in our earlier models

(especially model 3.3), will help to estimate the effectiveness or otherwise of the moderator.

JS (Overall) = β0 + β1JSS-SUBSCALEi + β2PD + β3JSS-SUBSCALEi x PD + e (3.3)




Model 3.3 would be used to capture the effectiveness of power distance for each of the nine „job satisfaction

facets‟ (JSS-SUBSCALEi). This model would capture the effect of moderator (PD) in its interactional form,

when the coefficient β3 would happen to be statistically significant; the effect then will be measured as:

δJSS/δJSS-SUBSCALEi = β1 + β3PD + e (3.4)

Equation 3.4 would be evaluated at three value-levels (mean of PD, one-standard deviation–minus, and one-

standard deviation–plus).

3.10 Population

The employees of public sector and private organizations of Islamabad/Rawalpindi was our target population

from which the sample was taken. The estimated number of employees in both sectors is (1248). The

feedback was obtained using convenience sampling technique. The list of Federal Ministries of Government

of Pakistan are given in Appendix II. The following 04 ministries were selected from the given Appendix II

using Random samplingmethod and for this purpose blind draws were taken.

i- Ministry of Labour& Manpower (150 employees);

ii- Ministry of Housing and Works (120 employees);

iii- Ministry Information Techonology (142 employees);

iv- Ministry of Human Rights (80 employees);

The target population of private sector includes companies of Rawalpindi/Islamabad listed in Islamabad

Stock Exchange (ISE). The list is given in Appendix III. Random sampling method was used to find 04 local

listed companies of private sector from the given Appendix III and for this purpose blind draws were taken.

The following companies were selected:

i- Attock Refinery Limited (500 employees);

ii- Murree Brewery Company Limited (114 employees);

iii- NIB Bank (Local Head Office Branch) (55 employees);

iv- Punjab Oil Mills Limited (87 employees)

Structured questionnaire was used for generation of required data from respective respondents

3.11 Sample

The research has been narrowed down by taking sample of population. We obtained sample of 25% (n 312)

of the total population (1248), as the total population is large enough and due to time constraints and lack of

resources it is not possible to get feedback from all. The details of questionnaires were placed in the admin

offices of selected organizations and received 244 filled questionnaires. The anonymity of the employees was

assured.

3.11.1. Sample distribution

Organization wise sample distribution is provides as under:

Table 1: Detail of Organizations

Public & Private Organizations

Sample

Response

rate

Ministry of Labour & Manpower 39 33

Ministry of Housing and Works 39 27

Ministry of Information Technology 39 36

Ministry of Human Rights 39 32

Attock Refinery Limited 39 33

Murree Brewery Company Limited 39 35

NIB Bank 39 25

Punjab Oil Mills Limited 39 23

Total 312 244


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Pakistan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Pakistan

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ministry_of_Labour_%26_Manpower&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Railways_%28Pakistan%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ministry_of_Housing_and_Works&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Human_Rights_%28Pakistan%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Human_Rights_%28Pakistan%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ministry_of_Labour_%26_Manpower&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ministry_of_Housing_and_Works&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Information_and_Broadcasting_%28Pakistan%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Information_and_Broadcasting_%28Pakistan%29



The above table 1 represents that 312 questionnaires were distributed out of which 244 received. Twelve

questionnaires wereincomplete which were not used in data analysis. So, response rate is 74.5 percent which

included those 232 questionnaires which were filled correctly.

4. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 4.1 Data and reliability test

Cronbach‟s alpha is widely used method to testing reliability of the scales used. The value of alpha varies from

zero to 1, and its satisfactory value requires alpha to be having a value of 0.6 and higher (Malhotra, 2000;

Cronbach, 1951). In addition, Sekaran (2003) comments on different levels of Cronbach‟s alphas, saying that

the Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient reliability nearer to 1 is considered excellent, whereas reliability estimates over

0.80 is considered good, 0.70 range is acceptable and less than 0.60 is considered poor. The results of reliability

test, in case of scales used in this study are obtained and provided in Table 2.

Table 2: Results of Reliability Test

Scales

No. of

items Cronbach’s Alpha Source

Pay satisfaction 04 0.770 Spector (1985)

Promotion satisfaction 04 0.795 //

Supervision satisfaction 04 0.663 //

Benefit satisfaction 04 0.886 //

Reward satisfaction 04 0.633 //

Operation satisfaction 04 0.752 //

Coworker satisfaction 04 0.667 //

Work itself satisfaction 04 0.803 //

Communication satisfaction 04 0.856 //

Spector’s 36-items total satisfaction

Overall job satisfaction

36

03

0.801

0.844

//

Jenkins and Klesh

(1983)

Power distance 06 0.556 Dorfman& Howell

(1988)

The above table 2 represents the estimated values of the Cronbach‟s alphas (α) of all the scales used; these

scales are: the nine facets of Spector‟s Job satisfaction, namely Pay satisfaction (PS), Promotion satisfaction

(PRS), Supervision satisfaction (SUS), Benefits satisfaction (BES), Rewards satisfaction (RES), Operation

procedure satisfaction (OPS), Co-workers relations (CRS), Nature of work satisfaction (NWS)/Work itself

satisfaction and Communication satisfaction (COS), as well as, Spector‟s 36-items total satisfaction (JS

Spector), Overall job satisfaction (JS Overall) and Power distance (PD).

According to above table 4.1, the value of alpha varies from 0.556 to 0.886. Pay Satisfaction has 4 items for

measurement and the reliability value estimates at α=0.770, which shows that the items are highly reliable.

Promotion Satisfaction has 4 items for measurement and the reliability value estimates to be α=0.795, which

represents that items are highly reliable. Supervision Satisfaction has 4 items for measurement and the

reliability value estimates to be α=0.663 which shows that items are satisfactory. Benefits Satisfaction has 4

items for measurement and the reliability value estimates to be α=0.886 which represents that items are highly

reliable. Rewards Satisfaction has 4 items for measurement and the reliability value estimates to be α=0.633

which shows that items are satisfactory. Operating Procedure Satisfaction has 4 items for measurement and the




reliability value estimates to be α=0.752 which shows that items are highly reliable. Co-workers Satisfaction

has 4 items for measurement and the reliability value estimates to be α=0.667which represents that items are

satisfactory. Work itself Satisfaction has 4 items for measurement and the reliability value estimates to be

α=0.803 which shows that items are highly reliable. Communication Satisfaction has 4 items for measurement

and the reliability value estimates to be α=0.856which shows that items are highly reliable. The Spector‟s

Total Satisfaction scale consists of 36 items, and its reliability alpha estimates at α= 0.801, showing that its

constituent items are highly reliable. The Overall Job Satisfaction has 3 items for measurement and the

reliability value estimates at α=0.844which represents that the reliability is good and items are internally

consistent. The moderating variable Power Distance measures through 6 items with Cronbach‟s alpha α =

0.556. Although the reliability value is not high but it could be defended through the evidence that the “measure

of power distance” developed by Dorfman& Howell (1988) with Cronbach‟s alpha 0.57 has used in the current

study. And result of current study Cronbach‟s alpha isα = 0.556 which is near to the results of Dorfman&

Howell (1988).

4.2 Analyzing Spector’s Job Satisfaction facets using Spector’s own analytic

Methodology

As described in Chapter 3 on methodology, Spector (January, 2013. Job Satisfaction Survey, JSS: retrieved

from http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/scales/jsspag.html)advocates his own way of analyzing the JSS scores.

According to him, for each of the nine 4-item sub-scales, as well as, for 36-items total job satisfaction (JS), the

respondents‟ scores would be summed up and evaluated on the following basis. Scales Dis-

satisfactory

Ambivalence Satisfactory

For every 4-item subscale 4 – 12 score 12 – 16 score 16 – 24 score

For 36-item JS scale 36 – 108 score 108 – 144 score 144 – 216 score

Source: Developed on the basis of materials available on: Spector‟s Job Satisfaction

Survey,JSS:retrieved from http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/scales/jsspag. html, on January

17, 2013)

Accordingly, this researcher has followed Spector‟s suggested analytic methodology and estimated the JSS

scores, as provided in table 4.2. Table 3 :Descriptive Statistics

N Min Max Mean Std.

Deviation

Sum of Pay Satisfaction 232 8.00 24.00 16.0819 3.34421

Sum of Promotion Satisfaction 232 7.00 24.00 16.6078 3.76663

Sum of Supervision Satisfaction 232 6.00 24.00 17.4138 3.48669

Sum of Benefit Satisfaction 232 6.00 24.00 16.1250 4.35809

Sum of Reward Satisfaction 232 5.00 21.00 13.2888 3.50859

Sum of Operation Satisfaction 232 6.00 22.00 12.9957 3.89082

Sum of Coworker Satisfaction 232 8.00 24.00 18.2069 2.79306

Sum of Work Satisfaction 232 7.00 24.00 16.6422 3.71804

Sum of Communication Satisfaction 232 7.00 23.00 17.3879 4.01894

Sum of 36-item Total Satisfaction 232 102.00 181.00 144.7500 15.21697

As far as the nine facets of JSS are concerned, the score of Pay satisfaction (PS) is estimated to be 16.081 which

meet the Spector‟s addition for satisfactory results. The score of Promotion satisfaction (PRS) is estimated at

16.607 which also meet the Spector‟s condition for satisfactory results. Supervision satisfaction (SUS) score is

17.413 which meet the Spector‟s condition for satisfactory results. Also the score of Benefits satisfaction (BES)

is estimated at 16.125 which meet the Spector‟s condition for satisfactory results. The Reward satisfaction

(RES) score is estimated to be 13.288 which fall within the scores meant for ambivalence/neutral position.


http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/scales/jsspag.html)




Operation procedure (OP) score is estimated to be 12.995 which also fall within the scores meant for

ambivalence/neutral position. The score of Co-workers satisfaction (CRS) is estimated at 18.206and meet the

Spector‟s condition for satisfactory results. The Nature of work satisfaction (NRS) score is 16.642 which meet

the Spector‟s condition for satisfactory results. The score of Communication satisfaction (COS) is estimated to

be 17.387 which also meet the Spector‟s condition for satisfactory results.

As far as JSS‟s 36-items total satisfaction is concerned, it scores at 144.75, and fulfills the Spector‟s condition

for satisfactory results.

4.3 Analyzing Spector’s Job Satisfaction facets using statistical mean values

In addition to the analytic technique suggested by Spector (1985, 2013) and carried out in preceding section 4.2

for evaluation of the responses on various subscales of job satisfaction, a relatively more sophisticated and

statistically advance way of evaluating the respondents‟ responses is to generate data on the variables of interest

by to taking means of the responses on each of the items of the respective subscale (this section), and then

evaluating/comparing the resultant mean values with mid-points for determining the statistical significance of

the mean-differences (this and next section).

Accordingly the data on nine job satisfaction facets along with 36-item„Total satisfaction‟ are generated, and its

descriptive statistics are provided in table 3 (a).

Table 3 (a): Descriptive statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean

Std.

Deviation

Pay satisfaction 232 2.00 6.00 4.0205 .83605

Promotion satisfaction 232 1.75 6.00 4.1519 .94166

Supervision satisfaction 232 1.50 6.00 4.3534 .87167

Benefit satisfaction 232 1.50 6.00 4.0313 1.08952

Reward satisfaction 232 1.25 5.25 3.3222 .87715

Operation satisfaction 232 1.50 5.50 3.2123 .96302

Co-worker satisfaction 232 2.00 6.00 4.5517 .69826

Work itself satisfaction 232 1.75 6.00 4.1606 .92951

Communication satisfaction 232 1.75 5.75 4.3470 1.00474

36-items Total satisfaction 232 2.83 5.03 4.0208 .42269

Since the Spector‟s scales vary between 1 and 6, the mid-point therefore estimates at 3.5; hence mean values

less than 3.5 would reflect unsatisfactory position, and mean values higher than 3.5 satisfactory.

Table 3 (a), giving descriptive statistics of various jab satisfaction facets, reveal that the mean values of the Pay

satisfaction (4.021), Promotion satisfaction (4.152), Supervision satisfaction (4.353), Benefit satisfaction

(4.031), Co-worker satisfaction (4.552), Work itself satisfaction (4.161), Communication satisfaction (4.347)

and Total satisfaction (4.020) are higher than the mid-point (3.5), and Reward satisfaction (3.322) and

Operation procedure satisfaction (3.212) lower, showing that the mean values of the former variables fall in the

satisfactory zone while that of the later in unsatisfactory zone.

Similarly, data on two other variables (Overall job satisfaction and Power distance) are generated, and their

descriptive statistics along with that of the three demographic variables (age, experience and education) are

developed and provided in table 4.3 (b).




Table 3 (b): Descriptive statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean

Std.

Deviation

Dependent, moderating and demographic variables

Overall job satisfaction 232 2.33 7.00 5.1365 1.14804

Power distance 232 1.17 5.00 3.0833 .65777

Age of respondent 232 20.00 58.00 32.0517 8.01726

Experience 232 1.00 28.00 7.1746 5.89342

Education 232 10.00 18.00 14.4569 1.67948

Table 3 (b) reveals that the mean value of variable „Overall job satisfaction‟ is higher than its mid-point

(midpoint = 4, as its scale ranges between 1 and 7), and falls in satisfactory zone. The mean value of variable

„Power distance‟ is also higher, though slightly, than its mid-point (midpoint = 3, as its scale ranges between 1

and 5), and it falls in the satisfactory zone, too.

The frequency analysis of the fourth demographic variable – gender – has been provided in table 3 (c).

Table No. 3 (c): Sex of respondent

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Female 15 6.5 6.5 6.5

Male 217 93.5 93.5 100.0

Total 232 100.0 100.0

Table 3 depicts that, of the total respondents, 15 are females (6.50%) and 217 are males (93.50%).

4.4 Evaluating statistical significance of respondents’ responses, using One-sample T Test

Table 3 (a & b) of the preceding section presented descriptive statistics of the respondents‟ responses on various

variables and provided their respective mean values. This present section is devoted to analyze whether those

mean values of variables have turned out to be statistically facets‟ and „Total satisfaction‟ variables are

measured through a 6-item Likert scale, and in such a measuring scale, the mid-point happens to be 3.5,

bifurcating the „Agreed/Satisfied‟ responses (valuing 4 and above) and „Not Agreed/Unsatisfied‟ responses

(value 3 and below). Hence, using the test value = 3.5, we carry out One-sample t-test of Spector‟s job

satisfaction facets and total satisfaction, and provide the results in table 4 (a & b).




Table 4 (a): One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pay satisfaction 232 4.0205 .83605 .05489

Promotion satisfaction 232 4.1519 .94166 .06182

Supervision satisfaction 232 4.3534 .87167 .05723

Benefit satisfaction 232 4.0313 1.08952 .07153

Reward satisfaction 232 3.3222 .87715 .05759

Operation satisfaction 232 3.2123 .96302 .06323

Coworker satisfaction 232 4.5517 .69826 .04584

Work itself satisfaction 232 4.1606 .92951 .06103

Communication satisfaction 232 4.3470 1.00474 .06596

36-item total satisfaction 232 4.0208 .42269 .02775

Table 4 (b): One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3.5

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

T Df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference Lower Upper

Pay satisfaction 9.482 231 .000 .52047 .4123 .6286

Promotion satisfaction 10.545 231 .000 .65194 .5301 .7737

Supervision satisfaction 14.913 231 .000 .85345 .7407 .9662

Benefit satisfaction 7.427 231 .000 .53125 .3903 .6722

Reward satisfaction -3.088 231 .002 -.17780 -.2913 -.0643

Operation satisfaction -4.551 231 .000 -.28772 -.4123 -.1631

Coworker satisfaction 22.942 231 .000 1.05172 .9614 1.142

Work itself satisfaction 10.824 231 .000 .66056 .5403 .7808

Communication satisfaction 12.840 231 .000 .84698 .7170 .977

36- items total satisfaction 18.768 231 .000 .52083 .4662 .5755

Panel (a) of table 4 provides data on mean values of the variables under evaluation, and panel (b) gives data on

mean differences (how much mean value differs from the mid-point = 3.5) and their respective t-statistics and

significance levels.

The results indicate that the mean differences of the all nine Job satisfaction facets, as well as, Total satisfaction

are statistically significant at p < 0.01, indicating that the respective responses of the respondents statistically

differ from the mid-point neutral position. This further means that the respondents are statistically significantly

satisfied with regard to almost all Job satisfaction variables, with the exception of Reward satisfaction and

Operation satisfaction for which they showed dissatisfaction.

In addition, we have two more variables – power distance (PD) and an alternative measure of job satisfaction -

overall job satisfaction - which also need to be tested for significance, using One sample t test. Accordingly, the

test is carried out, and the results thereof are provided in table 5 (a & b) and 4.6 (a & b).




Table 5 (A) : One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Power distance 232 3.0833 .65777 .04318

Table 5 (B): One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval

of the Difference

Lower Upper

POWER

DISTANCE

1.930 231 .055 .08333 -.0018 .1684

As far as the variable Power distance is concerned, the mean difference of the respondents‟ responses is

statistically moderately significant at p < 0.10, indicating that the respective responses moderately differ from

the mid-point neutral position (which is 3 because of the usage of the 1 – 5 item Likert scale).

Table 6 (A): One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Overall job satisfaction 232 5.1365 1.14804 .07537

Table 6 (B): One-Sample Test

Test Value = 4

T Df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Overall job satisfaction 15.078 231 .000 1.13649 .988 1.285

As far as the variable Overall job satisfaction is concerned, the mean difference of the respondents‟ responses is

highly statistically significant at p < 0.01, indicating that the respective responses statistically differ from the

mid-point neutral position (which is 4, because of the usage of the 1 – 7 items Likert scale).

4.5 Analyzing Job Satisfaction facets across public and private sector organizations To check whether the mean value of various Job satisfaction facets differ across public and private sectors, the

Dummy-variable econometric approach (Gujarati, 2007; pp. 304-331) is used. This technique requires

regressing variable Y over D, where Y stands for dependent variable, and dummy D = 1 for public sector

employees and D = 0 for private sector employees (as reflects in Model 3.1 of Chapter 3 on methodology). In

the estimated model, the intercept term β0 would measure the mean value of the variable where we kept D = 0,

private sector organization employees in this case, and β1 – the coefficient carting with D would measure the

magnitude by which mean value of public sector employees‟ responses would differ from that of the private

sector responses. However, while evaluating the coefficient β1, β1 should be checked for statistical significance,

and the sign carrying with it. A statistical significant coefficient carrying plus sign would mean that the mean

response of the public sector employees is statistically higher by the magnitude of the coefficient. While

coefficient carrying negative sign would indicate that mean response would be lower.




Applying this approach to analyze position of variable Pay satisfaction (PS) across public and private sector

organizations‟ employees, the results obtained are:

PS = 4.139 - 0.225D

(- 2.058)

(0.0410) (4.1a)

(Figures in the 1st and 2

nd parentheses are t-statistic and significance levels)

The results given in equation 4.1 (a) indicate that the mean value of responses on Pay satisfaction (PS) of

private sector employees, on an average, is equal to 4.139, while the that of the public sector organization

employees‟ differs from it by a value 0.225, on a lower side (because of minus sign); and this difference

between the mean values of the two groups (private and public) is statistically significant at p < 0.05.

In the same way, the Dummy-variable analysis has been carried out, and results are provided, as follows.

PRS = 4.491- 0.645D

(-5.530)

(0.000) (4.1b)

SUS = 4.37 - 0.032D

(-0.282)

(0.778) (4.1c)

BES = 3.843 + 0.358D

(2.525)

(0.012) (4.1d)

RES = 3.609 - 0.546D

(-4.967)

(0.000) (4.1e)

OPS = 3.305-0.175D

(-1.388)

(0.166) (4.1f)

CRS = 4.641-0.170D

(-1.857)

(0.065) (4.1g)

NWS = 4.148 + 0.024D

(0.199)

(0.842) (4.1h)

COS = 4.314+ .063 D

(.479)

(.632) (4.1i)

JS (Spector) = 4.100 - 0.150D

(-2.738)

(0.007) (4.1j)

JS (Overall) = 5.091+ 0.087D




(0.573)

(0.567) (4.1k)

PD = 3.003 + 0.153 D

(1.774)

(0.077) (4.1l)

Equations 4.1 (a – l) indicate that the respondents‟ responses on Pay satisfaction (PS), Promotion satisfaction

(PRS), Benefit satisfaction (BES), Reward satisfaction (RES), Co-workers satisfaction (CRS), Power distance

(PD) and Total satisfaction (JS (Spector)) statistically significantly differ across public and private sector‟s

employees; while in cases of Supervision satisfaction (SUS), Operating procedures (OPS), Nature of work

(NWS), Communication satisfaction (COS) and Overall job satisfaction (JS (Overall)), they do not differ.

4.6 Regressing Spector’s ‘Total satisfaction’ over nine ‘Job satisfaction facets’

As already discussed in Chapter-3 on methodology, as well as, in the preceding paragraphs that, whereas

Spector measures nine different facets of job satisfaction (using a sub-scale of 4 items for each), he also

advocates to take all his 36 (9 x 4) items for „total satisfaction‟ (JS (Spector)). In order to evaluate whether this

Total satisfaction is significantly determined by the nine Job satisfaction facets, the former variable is regressed

over the later ones.

JS (Spector) = f(β0 + β1PS + β2PRS + β3SUS + β4BES+ β5RES + β6OPS + β7CRS+ β8NWS

+ β9COS + e) (4.2a)

Estimating the model 4.2a),

JS (Spector)= - 0.013+ 0.115PS + 0.112PRS + 0.110SUS + 0.110BES +0.109RES

(-.750) (57.384) (61.096) (53.314) (71.475) (54.600)

(0.454) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

+.108 OPS +.113CRS +.114NWS +.112COS (4.2b)

(62.077) (44.840) (59.551) (65.012) (4.2c)

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (4.2d)

R= 0.998 R2 = 0.997 R

2adjusted = 0.997

F = 7448.15 (p-value/sig. level = 0.000) (4.2e)

(Figures in the 1st and 2

nd parentheses are t-statistic and significance levels, respectively)

The estimated model 4.2 is, as a whole, statistically significant as reflects from the F-statistic, valuing at

7448.15 and significance level at p < 0.01. The coefficient of determination R2 = 0.997 indicates that 99.70

percent variation in dependent variable JS (Spector) has been explained by variations in independent variables (PS,

PRS, SUS, BES, RES, OPS, CRS, NWS &COS). As far as the individual independent variables are concerned,

the coefficients of all nine explanatory variables carry positive signs and statistically significant p-values (p <

0.00), indicating the fact that each of the nine job satisfaction facets positively and significantly contributes

towards total satisfaction of the employees.

4.7 Regressing ‘Overall job satisfaction’ over nine ‘Job satisfaction facets’

To reinforce the results obtained in previous section with regards to regressing Spector‟s 36-item „Total

satisfaction‟ on nine „Job satisfaction facets‟ through model 4.2, this section additionally use an independently

developed „Overall job satisfaction‟ scale and regress over the nine „job satisfaction facets‟, using the following

model.

JS (Overall) = f(β0 + β1PS + β2PRS + β3SUS + β4BES+ β5RES + β6OPS + β7CRS+ β8NWS




+ β9COS + e) (4.3a)

Estimating the model 4.3a),

JS (Overall)=-3.572 + 0.260PS + 0.122PRS + 0.299SUS + 0.238BES + 0 .204RES

(-7.757) (4.727) (2.435) (5.289) (5.629) (3.730)

(0.000) (0.000) (0.016) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

+ 0.238OPS + 0.167CRS + 0.312NWS + 0.321COS (4.3b)

(4.972) (2.412) (5.948) (6.767) (4.3c)

(0.000) (0.017) (0.000) (0.000) (4.3d)

R= 0.814 R2 = 0.663 R

2 = 0.649

F = 48.491 (p-value/sig. level = 0.000) (4.3e)

The estimated model 4.3 is, as a whole, statistically significant (F = 48.491; p < 0.00. The coefficient of

determination R2 estimates at 0.663, and indicates that 66.30 percent variation in dependent variable JS

(Overall)has been explained by variations in independent variables. As far as the individual independent variables

are concerned, the coefficients of all nine explanatory variables carry positive signs, and with the exception of

two explanatory variables (PRS and CRS, which happen to be statistically significant at < 0.05), seven

explanatory variables (PS, SUS, BES, RES, OPS, NWS &COS) are statistically significant at p < 0.00); the

results reinforce the earlier results, and indicate that each of the nine job satisfaction facets positively and

significantly contributes towards employees‟ overall job satisfaction.

4.8 Whether ‘Power distance’ moderates between ‘job satisfaction facets’ and ‘overall job satisfaction’

The regression carried out in the previous two sections have proved that Spector‟s (1985) job satisfaction facets

contribute towards the determination of 36 item „Total satisfaction‟ and „Overall job satisfaction‟ of

organizational employees. An attempt is made in this section to analyze whether variable „Power distance‟ (PD)

moderates between each of nine Job satisfaction facets and the „Overall job satisfaction‟. For this purpose, the

following econometric model would be estimated.

Y= β0+ β1X + β2PD + β3(XxPD) (4.4)

Where Y stands for dependent variable, X for independent variable, and PD for moderator, and interaction term

(XxPD) would be checked to evaluate the status of the moderator; if β3carrying with the interaction term is

found statistically significant, moderator would be evaluated to be statistically moderating between Y and X

variables.

Applying model 4.4 in case of Pay satisfaction (PS) - Job satisfaction (JS) relationship,

JS (Overall) = 3.130 + 0.440PS + 0.292PD - 0.054(PS_PD)

(1.922) (1.124) (0.562) (- 0.426)

(0.056) (0.262) (0.575) (0.670) (4.5a)

The interaction term happens to be statistically insignificant (p > 0.10), suggesting that „Power distance‟ does

not moderates between overall job satisfaction and pay satisfaction.

In the same way, model 4.4 is run for other eight job satisfaction facets, and results are reproduced, as follows.

In case of Promotion satisfaction (PRS) - Job satisfaction (JS) relationship,

JS (Overall) = 3.236 + 0.460PRS + 0.102PD - 0.025PRS_PD

(2.431) (1.414) (0.239) (-.244)

(0.016) (0.159) (0.812) (0.808) (4.5b)

In case of Supervision satisfaction (SUS) - Job satisfaction (JS) relationship,

JS (Overall) = 0.464 + 1.043SUS + 0.647PD - 0.139SUS_PD

(0.303) (2.992) (1.293) (-1.216)




0.762) (0.003) (0.197) (0.225) (4.5c)

In case of Benefits satisfaction (BES) - Job satisfaction (JS) relationship,

JS (Overall) = 3.750 + 0.319BES + -0.033PD + 0.016BES_PD

(3.270) (1.154) (-0.089) (.183)

(0.001) (0.250) (0.930) (.855) (4.5d)

In case of Contingent Rewards satisfaction (RES) - Job satisfaction (JS) relationship,

JS (Overall) = 2.422 + 0.736RES + 0.346PD - 0.078RES_PD

(1.901) (2.021) (0.851) (-0.668)

(0.059) (0.044) (0.395) (0.505) (4.5e)

In case of Operating Procedure satisfaction (OPS) - Job satisfaction (JS) relationship,

JS (Overall) = 1.767 + 0.909OPS + 0.658PD - 0.161OPS_PD

(1.413) (2.589) (1.691) (-1.458)

(0.159) (0.010) (0.092) (0.146) (4.5f)

In case of Co-Workers satisfaction (CRS) - Job satisfaction (JS) relationship,

JS (Overall) = - 0.893 + 1.308CRS +1.137PD - 0.244)CRS_PD

(-0.403) (2.702) (1.585) (-1.562)

(0.688) (0.007) (0.114) (0.120) (4.5g)

In case of Nature of Work satisfaction (NWS) - Job satisfaction (JS) relationship,

JS (Overall) = 2.755 + 0.556NWS + 0.069PD - 0.011NWS_PD

(2.058) (1.777) (0.158) (-0.111)

(0.041) (0.077) (0.875) (0.912) (4.5h)

In case of Communication (COS) - Job satisfaction (JS) relationship,

JS (Overall) = 1.639 + 0.763COS + 0.332PD - 0.063COS_PD

(1.343) (2.731) (0.883) (-.729)

(0.180) (0.007) (0.378) (0.467) (4.5i)

The equations 4.5 (a – i) indicate that the interaction terms in all nine job satisfaction facets cases have turned

out statistically insignificant (p > 0.10), suggesting that „Power distance‟ does not moderates between job

satisfaction facets and overall job satisfaction.

A possible explanation as to why „Power distance‟ does not work as an effective moderator may be the fact that

power distance is not a strong cultural dimension in Pakistani society; Hofstede‟s own research has put Pakistan

on a moderate level (55), on an index which extends from the lowest 1 to the highest 120.

5.DISCUSSION

The purpose of the study was to investigate whether different facets of job satisfaction determine employees‟

total job satisfaction in Pakistani public and private sector organizations, and the cultural dimension Power

distance moderates between „job satisfaction facets‟ and „total job satisfaction‟. From one perspective findings

of the current study support all nine hypotheses that claim nine facets of job satisfaction determine overall job

satisfaction. But on other hand findings of current study do not support that power distance moderates

relationship between job satisfaction facets and employees overall job satisfaction.




Management of organizations, whether public or private sector, should take note of the fact that almost all nine

facets of job satisfaction have been found statistically significant factors of determining of job satisfaction

among employees; hence these factors should be considered and used as primary movers for motivating

employees for hard work, greater productivity and improved efficiency.

5.1 Managerial Implications

If management of public and private organizations finds some gaps in employees‟ efficiency,

productivity and commitment, it should be analyzed whether such gaps and deficiencies are due to the

lacking of employees‟ job satisfaction, and if yes, then where, in which of the job satisfaction facets

deficiency lies.

Such an analysis would help management to decide where, in which of the job satisfaction area, it

should concentrate for improving and enhancing the employees‟ overall job satisfaction, commitment

and engagement.

5.2 Limitations of the study

Some of the limitations of the current study are highlighted, as follows:

Convenience sampling technique was used, which has inherent disadvantage of representativeness.

The numbers of female respondents in this study are limited in number; hence this study lacks

perfectness on gender basis.

Sample size was not sufficient enough to reflect the factual image of the organizations functioning in

Pakistan in context with measuring overall job satisfaction.

5.3 Directions for future studies

On the basis of research findings and conclusions drawn, it is recommended that the Spector‟s nine job

satisfaction facets be also used as factors determining the overall job satisfaction, in addition to

Spector‟s own 36 items total satisfaction, in future studies.

It is also recommended that the cultural dimension „Power distance‟ be retried as a moderator in future

research to check the validity of the present findings.

The study should be replicated in different cultural contexts so that it could be generalized widely.

To improve peripheral strength, the future research efforts should get hold of a representative sample

from more organizations.

REFERENCES

Akinboye, J.O.(2001). Executive behaviour battery. Ibadan. Stirling-Horden Publishers.

Ali, A. & Haider, J. (2012).Impact of internal organizational communications on employee job satisfaction.

Journal of Management and Business Studies, 1(x), 38-44.

Ali, N. (2008). Factors affecting overall job satisfaction and turnover intention. Journal of Managerial Sciences,

1(2), 239-252.

Andrew, D and Kent, R. (2007). „The impact of perceived leadership behaviors on satisfaction,commitment,

and motivation: An expansion of the multidimensional model of leadership‟,International Journal of

Coaching Science, 1(1), 35-56.

Artz, B. (2010). Fringe benefits and job satisfaction. International Journal of Manpower, 31(6), 626-644.

Ayub, N. (2011).The relationship betweenwork motivation and jobsatisfaction.Pakistan Business Review.

Bhamani, S. (2012).Factors Determining Job Satisfaction of Early Childhood Teachers. IOSR Journal of

Humanities and Social Science, 3(1), 43-48.

Bhamani, S. (2012).Factors Determining Job Satisfaction of Early Childhood Teachers. IOSR Journal of

Humanities and Social Science, 3(1), 43-48.




Bhutto, N.A., Anwar, N., &Khawja, H.A. (2012).Relationship of age, gender, tenure, rank and job satisfaction-

empirical evidence from business institute of Pakistan.International Journal of Contemporary Business

Studies, 3(6).

Bialas, S. (2009). Power distance as a determinant of relations between managers and employees in the

enterprises with foreign capital. Journal of Intercultural Management, 1(2), 105-115.

Bibi, A., Lanrong, P.Y., Haseeb, M., & Ahmad, I. (2012). The effect of HRM practices on employees‟ job

satisfaction in universities of Pakistan. Business Management Dynamics, 1(12), 01-14.

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., &Klesh, J. (1983).Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of

organizational members. New York. John Wiley.

Card, D., Mas, A., Moretti, E., &Saez, E. (2010). Inequality at Work: The effect of peer salaries on job

satisfaction. NBER Working Paper No. 16396.

Castillo, J.X. (2004). Factors explaining job satisfaction among faculty.Journal of Agricultural Education, 5(3).

Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and internal structure of tests, Psychometrika, 6(3), 297-334.

Daft, R. N., &Noe, R. A. (2001).Organizational behavior. Florida. Harcourt college publishers.

Danish, R. Q., & Usman, A. (2010). Impact of reward and recognition on job satisfaction and motivation/ an

empirical study from Pakistan.International Journal of Business and Management, 5(2).

De Souza, R. (2002). Walking upright here.Countering prevailing discourses through reflexivity and

methodological pluralism.Massey University, Albany, NZ.

Dorfman, P., & Howell, J. P. (1988).Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns:

Hofstederevisited. In R. N. Farmer & E. G. McGoun (Eds.), Advances in International Comparative

Management,172-150. London, UK. JAI Press. edition). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Edward, P. (2000). Performance pay and productivity. American Economic Review, 90, 1346 – 61.

Francesso, A.M.,& Chen, Z.X. (2002). Cross culture difference with in a single culture. Power disatance as

moderator of the participation outcome relationship. BRC Papers on Cross Culture Management, Hong

Kong Baptist University.

Gerhart (Eds.) .Compensation in Organizations. Current Research and Practice, 61-103.

Giri, V.N., & Kumar, B.P. (2010).Assessing the impact of organizational communication on job satisfaction

andjob performance. Psychological Studies, 55(2), 137-143.

Giri, V.N., & Kumar, B.P. (2010).Assessing the impact of organizational communication on job satisfaction

andjob performance. Psychological Studies, 55(2), 137-143.

Gujarati, N. D. &Sangeetha (2007), Basic Econometrics 4/e, The McGraw-Hill companies, Special India

edition, 304-331.

Hanif, M.F., & Kamal, Y. (2009). Pay and Job Satisfaction: A comparative analysis of different Pakistani

Commercial Banks. MPRA Paper No. 16059.

Heery, E., & Noon, M. (2001).A dictionary of human resource management. New York. Oxford University

Press.

Heneman, H. G., & Judge, T. A. (2000).Compensation attitudes.In S. L. Rynes and B.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture‟s Consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and

Hofstede, G. (2002). “Dimensions do not exist: reply to Brendan McSweeney”, Human Relations, 55, SAGE

publications.

Hofstede, G. B., Neuijen, D.D., & Sanders, G. (1991).“Measuring organizational cultures: a qualitative &

quantitative study across twenty cases, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 28-316.

Hofstede, G., and Hofstede, G.J. (2005), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the mind.

Hussin, A.B. (2011). Relationship between job satisfaction and job performance among employees. Centre for

graduate studies, Open University Malaysia.

Ivancevich, J., Olelans, M., & Matterson, M. (1997).Organizational behavior and management, Sydney. Irwin.




Javed, M., Rafiq, M., Ahmed, M., & Khan, M. (2012).Impact of HR practices on organizational commitment in

public sector organizations of Pakistan.Interdisciplinary journal of contemporary Research in Business,

4 (1).

Jorfi, H., Yaccob, H.B., & Shah, I.M. (2011). HRM Emotional Intelligence: Communication effectiveness

mediates the relationship between stress management and job satisfaction. International Journal of

Managing Information Technology, 3(4).

Kosteas, V.D. (2011). Job Satisfaction and Promotions. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and

Society, 50(1), 174–194.

Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction in M.D. Dunnette (Ed.) Hand book of industrial

and organizational psychology, 1297-1343.

Lumley, E. J., Coetzee, M., Tladinyane, R., &Ferreria, N. (2011).Exploring job satisfaction and organizational

commitment of employees in the information technology environment. Southern African Business

Review, 15(1).

Malhotra, N. K.(2000).Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, (3rded), New Delhi: Pearson Education

Asia, India.

Malik, M.E., Danish, R.Q., &Yasin, M. (2012).Impact of pay and promotion on job satisfaction.evidence from

higher education institutions of Pakistan. American Journal of Economics, 6-9.

Marjan, B. (2011). Effect of life benefits and organizational commitment to employee job satisfaction power

distribution company. American Journal of Scientific Research, 29,142-148.

Mbah, S.E., &Ikemefuna, C.O. (2012).Job satisfaction and employees‟ turnover intentions in total Nigeria

plc.International Journal of Humanities and Social Science,02. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (revised

and expanded, 2nd ed.).

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mudor, H., &Tooksoon, P. (2011).Conceptual framework on the relationship between human resource

management practices, job satisfaction, and turnover.Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 2(2),

41-49.

Mueller, C. W., & McCloskey, J.C. (1990), Nurses Job Satisfaction.A Proposed Measure.Nursing Research,

39(2), 113-17.

Munjuri, M.G. (2011). The effect of human resource management practices in enhancing employee

performance in catholic institutions of higher learning in Kenya. International Journal of Business

Administration, 2(4).

obola, O.I. (2011). Conflict in human capital relationships: the impact of job satisfaction on job involvement in

a workplace. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 1(2).

Ojo, O. (2009). Impact assessment of corporate culture on employee job performance.Business Intelligence

Journal, 2(2).

Oloka, M.A., Ogutu, M. (2011). The influence of power distance on the relationship between

employeeempowerment and empowerment outcomes in multinational corporations in Kenya. University

of Nairobi, School of Business.

Opkara, J.O. (2002). Impact Of Salary Differential On Managerial Job satisfaction. A study gender gap and its

implications for management education and practice in a developing economy. J.Bus. Dev. Nation, 65-

92.

Parvin, M.M., &Kabir, M. N. (2011). Factors affecting employee job satisfaction of pharmaceutical sector.

Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(9), 113-123.

Rad, A.M.M., &Moraes, A.D. (2009).Factors affecting job satisfaction in public hospitals. J. Gen. Management,

34(4), 51-66.

Rast, S., &Tourani, A. (2012).Evaluation of organizational commitment and role of gender

difference.International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(7).


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/irel.2010.50.issue-1/issuetoc



Rehman, M.Z., Khan, M.R., Lashari, J.A. (2010). Effect of job rewards on job satisfaction, moderating role of

age differences, African Journal of Business Management, 4(6), 1131-1139.

Reio, G, T.,&Callahon, J. L. (2004). Affect, curiosity, and socialization related learning. path analysis of

antecedents to job performance. Journal of Business and Psychology,19,3-22.

Robbins, S. (1993). Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies and Applications (6th

Rosales, R.A., Labrague, L.J., & Rosales, G.L. (2013). Nurses‟ Job satisfaction and Burnout: Is there a

connection? International Journal of Advanced NursingStudies, 2 (1), 1-10.

Shah, M.J., Rehman, M., Zafar, H., &Riaz, A. (2012).Job satisfaction and motivation of teachers of public

educational institutions.International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(8).

Shahzad, K., Bashir, S., &Ramay, M.I. (2008). Impact of HR Practices on Perceived Performance of University

Teachers in Pakistan, International Review of Business Research Papers, 4(2), 302-315.

Sharaf, E., Madan, N., &Sharaf, A. (2008). Physician Job Satisfaction in primary care, Bahrain Medical

Bulletin, 30( 2).

Sharma. J.P. & Bajpai, N. (2011). Salary Satisfaction as an Antecedent of Job Satisfaction.European Journal of

Social Sciences, Volume 18, No. 3.

Shipton, H.W., Michael, A. D. J., Kamal, D.,& Malcolm, P. (2006).HRM as predictor of innovation. Human

Resource Management Journal, 16(1), 3-27.

Shurbagi, A.M.A., &Zahari, I. B. (2012).The relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction in

national oil corporation of Libya.International Journal of Humanities and Applied Sciences, 1(3).

Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction.Development of Job Satisfaction Survey.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(6), 693-713.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction.application, assessment, cause & consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA.

Sage Publications, Inc.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction.application, assessment, cause & consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA.

Sage Publications, Inc.

Srivastava, S. K. (2002). Empirical study of job satisfaction and work adjustment in public sector

personnel.Delhi Business Review, 3(2).

Teoh, W.M.Y., Chong, S.C., & Wool, L.W. (2011).Job satisfaction level among human resource

employees.Malaysia‟s perspective. African Journal of Business Management, 6(2), 595-607.

Tuzun, L.K. (2013). Organizational level of analysis of communication satisfaction and identification in relation

to job satisfaction.Journal of Economics Business & Management, 01.

Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach, 4th edition, USA.

Watson, A.M., Thompson, L.F., & Meade, A.W. (2007).Measurement invariance of the job satisfaction

surveyacross work contexts. Paper presented at 22nd Annual Meeting of Society for Industrial

andOrganizational Psychology. New York.

Yelboga, A. (2009). Validity and reliability of Turkish version of job satisfaction survey (JSS). World Applied

Sciences Journal, 6(8), 1066-1072.

Yoo, D. K., Rao, S. S., & Hong, P. (2005). A comparative study on cultural differences and quality

practices.Korea, USA, Mexico & Taiwan. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,

23(6), 607-624.

Yousef, D.A. (2000). Organizational commitment: A mediator of the relationships of leadership behavior with

job satisfaction and performance in a non-western country. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(1), 6 –

24.

Zoubi, D.M. (2012).The shape of the relationship between salary and job satisfaction.Far East Journal of

Psychlogoy and Business, 7(3).


Date post:	27-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Measuring Employees’ Job Satisfaction as Moderated by ... 5 Issue 12 Paper 21.pdf · promotion,...

Documents